Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springdale council discusses when members should sign advocacy letters, agrees to distinguish individual views from town positions
Summary
Councilors agreed March 12 to allow members to sign state or national advocacy letters in personal capacity but to avoid implying the full council or town endorsement; staff said media inquiries should be handled with an emphasis on local impacts and that notification to the mayor and town staff is helpful when members speak publicly.
Springdale councilors on March 12 discussed how individual elected officials should handle requests to sign letters or give media comment on federal- and state-level policy matters, particularly items involving Zion National Park and federal land funding.
Staff said the town had received multiple requests from organizations and the media asking council members and the mayor to sign statements or comment on national park and public-lands funding. The council examined whether signatures should be as individuals or on behalf of the town. Several council members cautioned that including a council title on a personal letter can create the impression the whole council or the town endorses the view; one councilor advised leaving the title off personal signatures.
Council consensus was that individual members may sign or comment in a personal capacity but should clearly separate personal opinions from official town positions. Members agreed that when an issue rises to a level the council should act collectively (for example, a resolution), it should come to the full council for review and a formal vote. The mayor and staff asked that council members notify the mayor and staff when they receive media requests and that staff be allowed to help coordinate replies and share that outreach with the rest of the council.
The council said it wants to be able to act nimbly when time-sensitive letters or media calls arise but that speed must be balanced with clarity about whether a signature represents a personal view or the official stance of the town.
Councilors also discussed a recent draft resolution about co-management of the national park that was circulated among gateway communities but did not go forward because communities could not reach agreement on final language before deadlines; several members said a simpler, well-worded council resolution supporting full funding of the park would have been preferable than a heavily softened text that diluted intended meaning.
